The Beatles

[JamesW]

A truly weird post by max_tranmere. Some of us are old enough to have actually lived through the 'Beatles era' and can see the utter drivel that max writes for what it is. The Beatles had what he calls their "god-like status" a long time before John Lennon's death. If max could remember the 60s - which he obviously can't - he would know very well what I mean.

The Beatles similar to the Rolling Stones? At least max is good for comedy.

[max_tranmere]

I wasn't trying to suggest the Beatles were anything other than a huge pioneering influential band but their legendary status, similar to what someone once said to me is rather like 'the Mozart phenomenon' , I truly believe is down to the fact such a key member died and the thing can never be done again. You are right that I don't remember the 1960's, I wasn't born then (I was soon after) but I am obviously aware the Beatles were the first significant band ever and basically set the blue-print for bands the world over to follow. Who in the world isn't aware for that? What I was saying was that the Beatles were canon-ised thanks to Lennon's death. I am certain if all four were alive now they would not hold the legendary, god-like status that they do - near to it, yes, but not quite the level that it is. I say again that the main reason, in my view, that the other three started doing things together (now only two), was because of the endless coverage, discussion, mega-status, etc, that has come about in the last three decades.

Most people can't name more than a couple of Rolling Stones albums from the 1960's, they certainly don't know that a Stones recording session took half a day longer than expected because Charlie Watts had to get his car serviced - yet they know all this stuff about the Beatles as books have been written about EVERY minute detail of them - and that, in my view, is because it can't be done again as Lennon was murdered. If Mick Jagger had died at the end of the 1960's, or if the Stones broke up then and Jagger died ten years later, I am certain we would have had literally hundreds more books written about the Stones, Stones shops all over the place, Stones guided tours where you go and visit Stones locations, Stones musicals, Stones TV tributes, and the remaining members of the band (that ended years earlier) would occasionally get together for photoshoots and the odd bit of recording.

We see all this with Nirvana. We are seeing it with Queen too. I read a review recently of a new book which has childhood photos of Freddie Mercury and interviews with people who knew him then. One thing the reviewer picked up on was how 'interesting' it is to see Freddie performing at school sports day as a kid. There is also a programme on next Tuesday on BBC1 about the other side of Freddie - the less confident, less secure Freddie we all thought we knew and about how he apparently wanted to go solo more often than we thought. Someone still alive does not have that kind of interest from the public. We have Queen tributes, musicals, huge numbers of books (more than for someone still alive), TV tributes, you name it. Canon-isation comes to the deceased (distinct from just being very big and remembered). Those still alive, where the potential still exists for a band to reform or an artist to write and record again, does not have that kind of scrutiny and following.

I am certain if Morrissey had passed away The Smiths would have all that too now, rather than just being viewed as a brilliant band that influenced many and had/have a huge following - they would be in the god-like league. They wouldn't be viewed as being as big and influenced as the Beatles, but not far from it. The NME did a poll a few years ago which loads of people voted in and The Smiths were voted Britain's best band ever. The Beatles were no 2. This poll still gets referred to today. I don't see The Smiths as anywhere near as big, important, influential, and pioneering, as The Beatles obviously - but I still think The Beatles moved up a notch or two in our thinking because it could never be done again because Lennon died.

[David Johnson]

"The Beatles had what he calls their "god-like status" a long time before John Lennon's death."

James is absolutely correct here. It was Lennon who said in 1964 that "we're more popular than Jesus" and there was some truth in that.

There were a variety of reasons for this popularity.

1. Britain in the 50's was still recovering from the effects of the Second World War and rationing etc. It was a pretty drab place.
2. WHen the Beatles came along in the early 60's as the economy picked up, it was a complete and utter revolution not only in music, but also culture, fashion and drugs. The 60's was the biggest cultural revolution in the 20th century.

There is absolutely no question whatsoever that the Beatles had god-like status before Lennon's death.

As to Argie's comment about how important a band the Beatles were. First they have sold more albums than anybody else ever has. Secondly I couldn't believe it when I went to see a Beatles tribute band in Cambridge about 10 years ago, the audience was full of kids of about 15 or 16 singing along word perfect to all the songs. Can you see that happening to an Oasis or Blur tribute band in 40 years time? Don't think so.

And McCartney is still winning prizes at 70 for best live act.

A unique band with a unique back catalogue. A Day in the Life still raises the hairs on the back of my neck.

[fatmick]

Sorry I think they are hugely over-rated!
Decent band but no more than that in my opinion.



One other thing David,
Oasis ARE a Beatles tribute act!

[JamesW]

max_tranmere wrote:

> What I was saying was that the Beatles were
> canon-ised thanks to Lennon's death.


Yes that's what you said and you were wrong.

I remember more than once watching the BBC TV news and it being reported that the Beatles had released a new single. The BBC never broadcast on their news bulletins that the Stones had released a new single. The first time I heard one particular Beatles single is when they played some of it on the BBC news. Plus I recall the occasions of Paul and John's marriages - both lead items on the main BBC news. How can this be wailed some people with so much going on in the world, Vietnam War for example, disorder in Northern Ireland etc. But the BBC stuck to their guns, saying that they thought those weddings were the biggest stories of those particular days. Well the Beatles were virtually gods after all.

David Johnson was right to mention the Lennon quote about Jesus because yes it did have some truth in it.

[max_tranmere]

As I've said no one is denying the enourmity of the Beatles, but they did move up a few notches in national and world thinking because it couldn't be done again as a result of Lennon's death. I've explained all this in my previous comments.

JamesW I'm not sure if you read all of my last comment. You picked up only on my 'canon-isation' point and I say that in my first paragraph.

Could someone explain why they think some of the Beatles albums, that only got mediocre reviews at the time, are now seen as classics? And why Shea Stadium didn't sell out the second time the Beatles played there (this wasn't the second night of two, it was their second visit there I think a year after the first).

I am aware of the cultural impact of the 60's and the Beatles - obviously. As one 1960's rock star said a few years ago: "we had finally got over the 2nd World War and we could start living."

[David Johnson]

"As I've said no one is denying the enourmity of the Beatles, but they did move up a few notches in national and world thinking because it couldn't be done again as a result of Lennon's death."

You are wrong. As has already been pointed out to you twice Max, Lennon said in 64 the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. He was probably right.

"Could someone explain why they think some of the Beatles albums, that only got mediocre reviews at the time, are now seen as classics?"

Irrespective of some mediocre review you might be able to drag up, this was the impact of the Beatles albums AT THE TIME. They spent 3 years on top of the album charts with 10 albums at number 1 in the UK during a period of 6 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nu ... 1960s_(UK)

This was the impact of their singles AT THE TIME

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_be ... 1960s_(UK)

They had 20 of the 60 top selling singles in the UK in the 60s.

Give it up Max. You will be arguing that it is inevitable that Muslims will be the majority in the UK by 2050 next Overall, the Beatles dominated pop music throughout the world before Lennon died and were bigger then than they have ever been since.

[David Johnson]

"And why Shea Stadium didn't sell out the second time the Beatles played there (this wasn't the second night of two, it was their second visit there I think a year after the first)."

Well the first time in 65 they sold out and it was a world record attendance. And the start of largescale stadium rock and pop music events. A year later there were 11,000 of the 55,000 tickets unsold but the revenue from ticket sales was higher.

My guess is that there were two reasons for the drop off in attendance.

1. You could hardly hear a thing at the first concert for the screaming.
2. Ticket prices were more expensive.

Either way, the Beatles got so pissed off with turning up, playing live and no-one being able to hear they went to being an album band with no big live appearances.

[max_tranmere]

I'm aware of Lennon's 'Jesus' comment. This caused them major problems in parts of America - bonfires of Beatles records, people picketing concerts and so on.

[Random Bloke]

In defence of The Beatles as a live act - I bet before they started recording they were a great live band. They paid their dues in Hamburg and their Liverpool fans were said to be gutted when the records started coming out as it felt like they'd lost them. Ray Davies wrote in his autobiography on seeing them live in 1964 you could see what a great band they were, I think suggesting that they'd kind of had their fill of the touring thing already. Sgt Pepper's not the best, but they've some output for those 8 years recording. Lyrically often interesting - melodically superb, great heartfelt harmonies (the harmonies in If I Fell boggle my mind) - tremendous players even Ringo! Yeah, you can say over-rated, I guess it comes down to personal taste. Interesting that in 1969, I think it was, whilst The Beatles and The Stones were still together, Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac were outselling both bands record-wise. I guess in the UK, but my facts are getting hazy here.
Still, at least they did their own thing and did it bloody well. They were still a pop band and look at the state of pop now!